Regular bail granted where rape allegations arise from a prolonged, consensual relationship between adults.

The applicant sought regular bail for offences registered under Sections 69, 64(1), 64(2)(m), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

The complainant, a 30-year-old woman, alleged that she became acquainted with the applicant in 2020, who introduced himself as "Sonu" from the Hindu community

She claimed she left her husband in September 2023 to live with the applicant upon his promise of marriage, later discovering his actual religious identity

After her divorce in November 2024, the applicant allegedly refused to marry her and threatened her

The applicant contended that it was a consensual long-term relationship and that the complainant was aware of his identity

The applicant has been in judicial custody since March 26, 2026, and the investigation is complete with the final report filed

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, given the nature of the consensual relationship and the completion of the investigation

2. Whether the applicant's criminal antecedents serve as a bar to granting bail in the present circumstances

The Court considered Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 regarding the grant of regular bail

It assessed the penal provisions of the BNS, 2023, specifically Section 64 (punishment for rape) and Section 69 (sexual intercourse by deceitful means/promise to marry)

The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents Amol Bhagwan Nehul v. State of Maharashtra (2025 INSC 782) and Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan (2024 INSC 994) to evaluate bail eligibility in cases of long-term adult relationships

the principle that while criminal antecedents require stringent conditions, they do not automatically mandate continued incarceration if the risk of fleeing or tampering is low

The Court observed that the case prima facie involved a long-term relationship between two consenting adults

It noted the applicant’s argument that the complainant lived with him even before her legal divorce, suggesting awareness of his status

Since the investigation concluded and the final report was filed, the Court found no compelling reason for continued incarceration, as the trial would take time to conclude

Addressing the State’s objection regarding the applicant's three criminal antecedents (including a POCSO conviction currently under appeal and an NDPS case), the Court determined that these could be mitigated by imposing "stringent conditions" rather than denying bail entirely

The Court concluded that there was no significant likelihood of the applicant fleeing justice or tampering with evidence

The Court held that the substance of the relationship and the completion of the investigation justified release despite the applicant’s history

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 75,000/- with a solvent surety of the same amount

Specific conditions were imposed, including: (i) regular appearance before the trial court; (ii) abstaining from similar offences; (iii) no tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses; and (iv) marking presence at the Industrial Area Police Station, Ratlam, on the first Saturday of every month until the conclusion of the trial